[Foundation-l] Push translation

Tue Jul 27 08:36:40 UTC 2010

>
> Google Translator Toolkit is particularly problematic because it
> messes up the existing article formatting (one example, it messes up
> internal links by putting punctuation marks before double brackets
> when they should be after) and it includes incompatible formatting
> such as redlinked templates. It also doesn't help that many editors
> don't stick around to fix their articles afterwards.
>

Yes this is one of the main issue of *Google Translator Tool Kit* (GTTK).
There are many points raised by Ravi regarding GTTK in his presentation at
WikiMania. http://docs.google.com/present/view?id=ddpg3qwc_279ghm7kbhs

Not all wikipedias work/create articles in the same way as English Wikipedia
or some other big wikipedias does. Many of the active wiki communities does
not like the word-to-word translation of the English Wikipedia articles. But
that doesn't mean that while developing an article, they won't refer English
Wikipedia. English wikipedia article is their first point of reference most
of the time. The problem starts when some one start forcing English
Wikipedia articles in a language wikipedia. Here it is Google, using the
Google Translate Tool Kit (GTTK) .

Most of the active wiki communities (especially non-Latin wikis) are not
interested in the word-to-word translation of the English Wikipedia
articles. Also many of them are not willing to to go through the big
articles (with lot of issues) created using GTTK and rewrite the entire
article to bring it to the wiki style. They will better prefer to start the
article from the scratch.

One of the main issue is that the Google/Google translators are not
communicating with the wiki community (of each language) before they start
the project in a wikipedia. For example, Tamil wikipedia community came to
know about Google efforts only 6 months after they started the project in
that wiki.

Wiki communities like the biological growth of the wikipedia articles in
their wiki. Why English Wikipedia did not start building wikipedia articles
using *Encyclopedia Britannica 1911* edition which was available in the
public domain?

Personally, I am not against GTTK or against Google. At least this effort is
good for the online version of a language (even if some argue that it is not
good for wikipedia). But this effort needs to be executed in a different way
so that wikipedia of that language will benefit from it. Some of the
solutions that are coming to my mind:

   1. Ban the project of Google as done by the Bengali wiki community (Bad
   solution, and I am personally against this solution)
   2. Ask Google to engage wiki community (As happened in the case of Tamil)
   to find out a working solution. But if there is no active wiki community
   what Google can do.  But does this mean that Google can continue with the
   project as they want? (Very difficult solution if there is no active wiki
   community)
   3. Find some other solution. For example, Is it possible to upload the
   translated articles in a separate name space, for example, Google: Let the
   community decides what needs to be taken to the main/article namespace.
   4. .........

If some solution is not found soon, Google's effort is going to create
problem in many language wikipedias. The worst result of this effort would
be the rift between the wiki community and the Google translators (speakers
of the same language) :(

Shiju

On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 8:39 AM, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:

> Shiju Alex,
>
> Stevertigo is just one en.wikipedian.
>
> As far as using exact copies goes, I don't know about the policy at
> your home wiki, but in many Wikipedias this sort of back-and-forth
> translation and trading and sharing of articles has been going on
> since day one, not just with English but with other languages as well.
> If I see a good article on any Wikipedia in a language I understand
> that is lacking in another, I'll happily translate it. I have never
> seen this cause problems provided I use proper spelling and grammar
> and do not use templates or images that leave red links.
>
> I started out at en.wp in 2001, so I don't think it's unreasonable to
> call myself an English Wikipedian (although I'd prefer to think of
> myself as an international Wikipedian, with lots of edits at wikis
> such as Serbo-Croatian, Spanish, Navajo, Haitian and Moldovan). I am
> not at all in favor of pushing any sort of articles on anybody, if a
> community discusses and reaches consensus to disallow translations
> (even ones made by humans, including professionals), that is
> absolutely their right, although I don't think it's wise to disallow
> people from using material from other Wikipedias.
>
> Google Translator Toolkit is particularly problematic because it
> messes up the existing article formatting (one example, it messes up
> internal links by putting punctuation marks before double brackets
> when they should be after) and it includes incompatible formatting
> such as redlinked templates. It also doesn't help that many editors
> don't stick around to fix their articles afterwards.
>
> -m.
>
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 9:04 PM, Shiju Alex <shijualexonline at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> really? It's a) not
> >> particularly well-written, mostly and b) referenced overwhelmingly to
> >>
> >>> English-language sources, most of which are, you guessed it.. Western
> in
> >>>
> >> nature.
> >>
> >
> > Very much true. Now English Wikipedians want some one to translate and
> use
> > the exact copy of en:wp in all other language wikipedias. And they have
> the
> > support of Google for that.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 5:52 AM, Oliver Keyes <scire.facias at gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >> "The idea is that most of en.wp's articles are well-enough written, and
> >> written in accord with NPOV to a sufficient degree to overcome any
> >> such criticism of 'imperial encyclopedism.' - really? It's a) not
> >> particularly well-written, mostly and b) referenced overwhelmingly to
> >> English-language sources, most of which are, you guessed it.. Western in
> >> nature.
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 3:43 AM, stevertigo <stvrtg at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > I would like to add to this that I think the worst part of this idea
> >> > > is the assumption that other languages should take articles from
> >> > > en.wp.
> >> >
> >> > The idea is that most of en.wp's articles are well-enough written, and
> >> > written in accord with NPOV to a sufficient degree to overcome any
> >> > such criticism of 'imperial encyclopedism.'
> >> >
> >> > Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > Nobody's arguing here that language and culture have no
> relationship.
> >> > > What I'm saying is that language does not equal culture. Many people
> >> > > speak French who are not part of the culture of France, for example
> >> > > the cities of Libreville and Abidjan in Africa.
> >> >
> >> > Africa is an unusual case given that it was so linguistically diverse
> >> > to begin with, and that its even moreso in the post-colonial era, when
> >> > Arabic, French, English, and Dutch remain prominent marks of
> >> > imperialistic influence.
> >> >
> >> > Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> >> > > This is well suited for the dustbin of terrible ideas.  It ranks
> right
> >> > > up there with the notion that the European colonization of Africa
> was
> >> > > for the sole purpose of civilizing the savages.
> >> >
> >> > This is the 'encyclopedic imperialism' counterargument. I thought I'd
> >> > throw it out there. As Bendt noted above, Google has already been
> >> > working on it for two years and has had both success and failure. It
> >> > bears mentioning that their tools have been improving quite steadily.
> >> > A simple test such as /English -> Arabic -> English/ will show that.
> >> >
> >> > Note that colonialism isnt the issue. It still remains for example a
> >> > high priority to teach English in Africa, for the simple reason that
> >> > language is almost entirely a tool for communication, and English is
> >> > quite good for that purpose.  Its notable that the smaller colonial
> >> > powers such as the French were never going to be successful at
> >> > linguistic imperialism in Africa, for the simple reason that French
> >> > has not actually been the lingua franca for a long time now.
> >> >
> >> > > Key to the growth of Wikipedias in minority languages is respect for
> >> the
> >> > > cultures that they encompass, not flooding them with the First-World
> >> > > Point of View.  What might be a Neutral Point of View on the English
> >> > > Wikipedia is limited by the contributions of English writers.  Those
> >> who
> >> > > do not understand English may arrive at a different neutrality.  We
> >> have
> >> > > not yet arrived at a Metapedia that would synthesize a single
> >> neutrality
> >> > > from all projects.
> >> >
> >> > I strongly disagree. Neutral point of view has worked on en.wp because
> >> > its a universalist concept. The cases where other language wikis
> >> > reject English content appear to come due to POV, and thus a violation
> >> > of NPOV, not because - as you seem to suggest - the POV in such
> >> > countries must be considered "NPOV."
> >> >
> >> > Casey Brown <lists at caseybrown.org> wrote:
> >> > > I'm surprised to hear that coming from someone who I thought to be a
> >> > > student of languages.  I think you might want to read an
> >> > > article from today's Wall Street Journal, about how language
> >> > > influences culture (and, one would extrapolate, Wikipedia articles).
> >> >
> >> > I had just a few days ago read Boroditsky's piece in Edge, and it
> >> > covers a lot of interesting little bits of evidence. As Mark was
> >> > saying, linguistic relativity (or the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis) has been
> >> > around for most of a century, and its wider conjectures were strongly
> >> > contradicted by Chomsky et al. Yes there is compelling evidence that
> >> > language does "channel" certain kinds of thought, but this should not
> >> > be overstated. Like in other sciences, linguistics can sometimes make
> >> > the mistake of making *qualitative judgments based on a field of
> >> > *quantitative evidence.  This was essentially important back in the
> >> > 40s and 50s when people were still putting down certain
> >> > quasi-scientific conjectures from the late 1800s.
> >> >
> >> > Still there are cultures which claim their languages to be superior in
> >> > certain ways simply because they are more sonorous or emotive, or
> >> > otherwise expressive, and that's the essential paradigm that some
> >> > linguists are working in.
> >> >
> >> > -SC
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > foundation-l mailing list
> >> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >> > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >> >
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>